[council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE

[philip.sheppard at aim.be]

I too am happy to support Jeff's new wording. Hope to join the call later. If not accept this as a proxy vote in favour.
Philip


"Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs at digitel.net> wrote ..
> fellow council members
> 
> i like  jeff's wording and would propose this as a modification to the
> initial proposal proposal..
> 
> it is truly more positive and, i believe,  remains a reflection of the
> sentiments of many .
> 
> sincerely
> 
> ken stubbs
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at Neustar.us>
> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at Neustar.us>;
> <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>; "'council'" <council at dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 2:04 PM
> Subject: RE: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE
> 
> 
> > Here is what I would recommend, which sounds much more positive.  I have
> > still not decided on my position on this motion, but I thought this
> > resolution sounds more palatable.
> >
> >
> > Please let me know your thoughts.
> >
> >
> ****************************************************************************
> > *
> >
> > Whereas,
> >    the Names Council resolution of 1st August 2002 called for "three
> > representatives
> >  per Constituency on the GNSO Council".
> >
> >    Whereas,
> >    ICANN core value 2.4 is:
> >    - "Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting
> the
> >  functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all
> > levels
> >  of policy development and decision-making".
> >
> >    Whereas,
> >    ICANN core value 2.7 is:
> >    - "Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that
> >  (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii)
> ensure
> >  that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development
> >  process."
> >
> >    Whereas,
> >    by-law article XX.5.8 states:
> >    "In the absence of further action on the topic by the New Board, each
> >  of the GNSO constituencies shall select two representatives to the GNSO
> >  Council.." "..no later than 1 October 2003."
> >
> >
> >    The GNSO council resolves that:
> >
> >    Three representatives per Constituency is consistent with ICANN core
> > value 2.4 on geographic and cultural diversity within the constituency
> as
> > the majority of ICANN regions are
> > represented.
> >    .
> >    Three representatives per Constituency is consistent with ICANN core
> > value 2.7 on well-informed decision making. Experience has shown that
> three
> > representatives  improves the constituencies ability to share the workload
> > of a council
> >  member, to be able to participate in task forces of the council, and
> to
> >  more effectively communicate with multiple regions.
> >
> >    And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes
> >  in its review timetable:
> >    1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives
> per
> >  constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual
> meeting
> >  2004;
> >    2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Neuman, Jeff
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:30 PM
> > To: 'gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org'; council
> > Subject: RE: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > This is my personal opinion. I am not against this resolution.  In fact
> the
> > principle of having 3 representatives makes sense.
> >
> > However, if this resolution were to stand, I would have to oppose it
> because
> > I do not believe that the requirement of having 2 representatives is
> > inconsistent with the existing bylaws (as stated in the resolution below).
> > Whether it is inconsistent or not is a point of debate in which reasonable
> > minds may differ.  In addition, arguments of efficiency are also
> debatable.
> > Lets not give the Board a topic to debate and give them just the bottom
> line
> > resolution.
> >
> > I want to support this concept.  Therefore, I would recommend that we
> revise
> > the motion.  I will send around my recommendation later on today.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: GNSO SECRETARIAT [mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:18 PM
> > To: council
> > Subject: [council] RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE
> >
> >
> > [To: Council at dnso.org]
> >
> > At the request of Antonio Harris, this mail is forwarded to the GNSO
> Council
> > list
> >
> > mercredi 13 août 2003 16:57
> > À : gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org; owner-council at dnso.org
> > Objet : RESOLUTION FOR TOMORROW'S TELECONFERENCE
> >
> >
> > Bruce,
> >
> > I would like to present the following resolution
> > to be discussed in the teleconference:
> >
> > Proposed Council resolution on Constituency representation to meet ICANN
> > requirements on geographical diversity and   informed decision-making
> >  Proposed by, in alphabetical order,
> >    Antonio Harris
> >    Ellen Shankman,
> >    Philip Sheppard
> >    Ken Stubbs
> >
> >    Whereas,
> >    the Names Council resolution of 1st August 2002 called for "three
> > representatives
> >  per Constituency on the GNSO Council".
> >
> >    Whereas,
> >    ICANN core value 2.4 is:
> >    - "Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting
> the
> >  functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all
> > levels
> >  of policy development and decision-making".
> >
> >    Whereas,
> >    ICANN core value 2.7 is:
> >    - "Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that
> >  (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii)
> ensure
> >  that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development
> >  process."
> >
> >    Whereas,
> >    by-law article XX.5.8 states:
> >    "In the absence of further action on the topic by the New Board, each
> >  of the GNSO constituencies shall select two representatives to the GNSO
> >  Council.." "..no later than 1 October 2003."
> >
> >
> >    The GNSO council resolves that:
> >
> >    Two representatives per Constituency is inconsistent with ICANN core
> > value 2.4
> >  on geographic and cultural diversity within the constituency. With three
> >  representatives per constituency, the majority of ICANN regions ARE
> > represented.
> >  With two, the majority of ICANN regions are NOT represented.
> >
> >    .
> >    Two representatives per Constituency is inconsistent with ICANN core
> > value 2.7
> >  on well-informed decision making. Experience has shown that three
> > representatives
> >  improves the constituencies ability to share the workload of a council
> >  member, to be able to participate in task forces of the council, and
> to
> >  more effectively communicate with multiple regions.
> >    .
> >    There is no evidence of increased effectiveness with two
> representatives
> >  rather than three.
> >    .
> >    And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes
> >  in its review timetable:
> >    1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives
> per
> >  constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual
> meeting
> >  2004;
> >    2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Tony Harris
> >
> >
> >